FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Revolutionary Nature of the Liturgical Reform

Revolutionary Nature of the Liturgical Reform

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

We have seen some,
but by no means all, of the depredations (1) inflicted on the Palm
Sunday liturgy, which became operative in 1956, and have noted that they
were undertaken at the expense of authentic Catholic values, doctrinal
integrity, poetic beauty and appreciation of the Church’s past
achievements.

History has indeed shown that these reforms were not only the tip of the
iceberg of an unrestrained pillaging and ransacking of the ancient Holy
Week rite; but they were also the first steps in a deliberate attempt
to demolish our common heritage and usher in an entirely new kind of
liturgy ‒ one that has not advanced the cause of Catholicism. It was a
painful record of humiliation, defeat and loss for all the Bishops,
priests and lay people who protested to the Holy See at the time. They
were simply left to rail in impotent perplexity.

Given the historical evidence, we are entitled to conclude that, in
spite of protestations of good intentions by the liturgists, the reforms
involved either an indifference to the nature of Catholic Tradition or a
desire to eradicate it.

One innovation begets another…

It is only when the details are examined that the revolutionary nature
of the reforms becomes apparent. Now we shall see what new ideas were
dreamt up by the progressivists to replace what they had managed to
purloin from the universal Church with the complicity of Pius XII.

Pius XII opened the door to today’s liturgical committees that design liturgy for each parish

The foremost issue was the “active participation” of the people, as Fr.
Frederick McManus, a major figure in the reform, explained as soon as
the new Holy Week Ordowas issued in 1956:

“The rubrics of the Ordo refer constantly to the responses to
be made by the members of the congregation and to their activity in the
carrying out of the holy liturgy. This is of course a notable departure
from the rubrical norms of the Roman Missal.” (2)

What is even more revolutionary is that responsibility for carrying out the liturgy now falls, by papal diktat
and for the first time in the Church’s History, on the shoulders of the
laity: their “active participation” is “made a matter of rubrical law
and incorporated into the very text of the new liturgical book.” (3)

When has the Roman Missal ever laid down rules to regulate how the
faithful should respond during the liturgy? (4) Even Fr. McManus had
to admit that the traditional Missal was silent on the manner of lay
participation. But the reformed Missal, on the other hand, made it
incumbent on the laity to give the responses and contribute actively to
the performance of the liturgy.

This shows that Pius XII imposed these changes in an authoritarian,
oppressive and intrusive program to please the liturgical reformers. The
impression was given that anyone praying silently in the pews during
liturgical ceremonies would be guilty of breaking a law laid down by the
Pope. (5)

The ‘cult of novelty’ in the Palm Sunday liturgy

The 1956 and 1962 Palm Sunday liturgy opens with a visual and
(literally) shocking reversal of traditional practice. In order to
reinforce the “community celebration” aspect, a portable table is set up
in the sanctuary, the palms are laid on it and the priest blesses them
in full view of the people, (6) all the while with his back to the
altar and the Blessed Sacrament.

Palms setout before a bare altar at a modern Novus Ordo church

Reversing centuries of liturgical tradition, the 1956 Ordo of
Palm Sunday mandated that the priest (or deacon) should conduct an
audible dialogue with the people while facing them. This took place at
various points: before the blessing of the palms; (7) both before and
after the procession; (8) before the Gospel and at the Orate Fratres. (9)

Ironically, the procession in honor of Christ the King was revamped to
exalt the role of the people in the liturgy. Now that the supernatural
significance of the sub-deacon’s role was eliminated, as were the
traditional purple vestments – doubly significant as the color
associated with royalty and Christ’s Passion – the way was open to
enlarging the role of the laity.

Whereas in the traditional Missal the singing of the liturgy was the
function of the priest and cantors alternating with the choir, in the
new Ordo this suddenly became the responsibility of all. (10)
Thus, the congregation was required to sing not only during the blessing
and procession of palms, but also throughout the entire Palm Sunday
Mass. (11) This introduced a novelty into the rubrics for sung Masses.
The Graduale Romanum issued by Pius X had not included instructions for congregational singing. (12)

A made-up prayer

Now, let us consider another innovation in the Palm Sunday liturgy that
was incorporated into the 1962 Missal, having been first introduced into
the 1956 Ordo: The prayer after the procession, which is said
facing the people and to which they have to respond aloud. It was the
result of a shambolic committee-work hastily cobbled together by Bugnini
and his associates and was problematic for two reasons.

First, theologically speaking, the prayer was vague and
ambivalent. It mentioned palm branches and God’s blessing, but without
establishing any intrinsic link between them, and spoke of our
redemption being wrought by Christ’s “right hand” (a phrase normally
attributed to the Father).

Second, linguistically speaking, it was expressed in somewhat
garbled Latin. Judging by its varying translations, no one seems to know
what exactly the prayer was supposed to mean. Evidently, the composers
of the prayer have left everyone guessing.

The Bea Psalms – from optional to mandatory

An example of an unwarranted intrusion into the Palm Sunday liturgy –
indeed into the whole of the 1956 Holy Week ceremonies – was the
imposition of a new Latin version of the Psalms, which had been
undertaken, at Pius XII’s request, by a committee of biblical experts
headed by Fr. Augustin Bea, S.J.

Bea would take the liturgical reform further under his friend John XXIII

This replaced St. Jerome’s Vulgate version of the Psalms that had been established as the universal and immemorial customary lex orandi
(law of prayer) for the Latin Rite. Their authenticity was guaranteed
by the Council of Trent on the basis of centennial custom, which is why
the liturgical use of the Vulgate was regarded as sacrosanct, as we can
see from the same Council’s warning that “no one is to dare, or presume,
to reject it under any pretext whatever.” (13)

At first, it was only optional, (14) but in 1956 Pius XII integrated
some of the new Psalms by force of law into the Holy Week ceremonies, an
initiative that was nothing short of revolutionary. This innovation was
yet another example of how Pius XII subordinated immemorial Tradition
to papal authority on the basis of the subjective opinions of the
reformers, in a manner that would be adopted by Paul VI on a
comprehensive scale.

His reform gave rise to two major problems.

First, the new wording of the Bea Psalms, drawn from Classical
Latin vocabulary and syntax, was different from the “Christianized”
idiom of the Vulgate, which the Church had adopted as the sacred
language of the liturgy and which the clergy had been using for over 15
centuries.

Fr. Bea despised the Latin recited by the clergy for so many centuries
and unjustly called it a “decadent usage” incapable of meeting the
standards of Classical Latin. (15) But there was no need to have an
inferiority complex about it.

As various classical scholars have shown, Medieval Latin was a direct
descendant of the literary, learned Latin of the classical age, not a
debased or corrupt form of it. It was this elevated form of Latin that
the Church elaborated and adapted for use in Scripture and the liturgy,
adding her own distinctive style and diction, to express the Christian
message. And, so, there emerged the unique “Christianized” Latin that is
found in the Vulgate. There the “family lineaments” of Latin
Christianity are clear, revealing the Bea version as an interloper.

Second, the Bea Psalms were ill adapted to Gregorian chant,
making it awkward to sing in religious communities and providing a
disincentive for them to do so. (16) The words were not, in general,
those used by their forebears in the Faith and the new chants, which had
to be composed to match, were not those that had echoed around the
medieval monasteries. We can conclude that the new Holy Week ceremonies
were not in harmony with the ancient Latin liturgical heritage and
should have no place in the
Roman Missal.

Thus, we can see how Pius XII began a process that had the gravest
possible implications for future changes in the liturgy – the gradual
detachment of the clergy from the worship, theology and spirituality of
their Latin patrimony.

To be continued

Lest anyone should think that the word depredation is mere
hyperbole, it has been chosen advisedly for its etymological roots in
the Latin language which links praeda (prey) to praedari (to plunder). Later the prefix de (completely) was added to intensify the meaning and indicate that a thorough job has been done.

It was the responsibility of the celebrant, not the laity, to “read
the black and do the red” as printed in the Missal, under pain of
penalty. There were also detailed instructions in the Missal for other
ministers in the sanctuary in their respective roles, but none for the
laity because they were not regarded as having a liturgical role to
play.
Here we must keep in mind a known historical fact: Under the influence
of Jansenism and Gallicanism, some 17th and 18th century French dioceses
published their own Missals independently of the Holy See, in which the
compilers issued instructions for the congregation to make certain
responses. But this does not, however, prove that the people did, in
fact, make any responses or, if so, how many in a given congregation or
to what extent throughout France. In the diocese of Meaux, for example,
a Missal was published in 1709 in which the people’s responses were
designated by the sign ℟ printed in red. But there was such a general
outcry against it that the Bishop, Thiard de Bissy (Bossuet’s immediate
successor), ordered the rubrics to be removed from the Missal. (See P.
Guéranger, Institutions Liturgiques, Paris, 1841, vol. 2, pp. 181-182)
See here.

This revolutionary view was reinforced in the General Instruction
of the Roman Missal where it is stated that the faithful have a duty (§
18) to become actively involved in the liturgy and they must not refuse to do so:
“The faithful, moreover, should not refuse to serve the People of God
in gladness whenever they are asked to perform some particular service
or function in the celebration.” (§ 97).

“In conspectu populi.”

After the opening Antiphon is sung, the celebrant, facing the people from behind the table, says Dominus vobiscum, to which all respond Et cum spiritu tuo. But in the traditional rite, the priest remains at the altar, and is specifically instructed not to turn to the people (non vertens se ad populum) during this exchange: the response is given by another minister in the sanctuary.

Before the procession, the deacon, facing the people, says Procedamus in pace (Let us go forth in peace), and the people respond In nomine Christi
(in the name of Christ). This contrasts with the traditional Missal,
which instructs only the Choir to sing the response. See p. 28 here.
At the end of the procession, a new prayer has been inserted, which is
said by the celebrant while facing the people, and requires the response
Amen from them.

After the priest has said the Orate fratres in a clearly audible voice (clara et elevata voce), the people respond aloud.

The rubrics of the 1956 Ordo and the 1962 Missal
indicate the parts to be sung by the choir and by the people. But the
rationale for this can be seen in the spirit of rivalry on which it was
based. Fr. McManus explained the thinking behind this reform:
“When a choir chants those parts of Holy Mass or other rites that belong
to the people, the faithful are not doing what they are appointed by
their baptismal character to do – namely, worship God as members of
Christ. In the restored Holy Week, the clear directions indicate again
and again that the people should not be denied this right.” (F. McManus, The Rites of Holy Week, p. 32)
An option is given for the faithful to sing Christus vincit or another hymn.

Council of Trent, session 4, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books.

In his Motu proprio Cotidianis precibus of March 24, 1945,
Pius XII granted permission for the use of the Bea Psalter to priests
and all who were obliged to say the Divine Office. And two years later
he extended this permission for any liturgical use. See De usu novi Psalterii latini extra horas canonicas (The use of the new Latin Psalter beyond the Canonical Hours), October 22, 1947, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 39 (1947), p. 508.

This included the Kyrie; Et cum spiritu tuo and Amen at the Collect; the entire Creed; Et cum spiritu tuo at the Offertory; Amen to the Secret; the responses at the Preface dialogue; the entire Sanctus; Amen after the Canon; Sed libera nos a malo, Amen and Et cum spiritu tuo at the Pater Noster and Libera; the Agnus Dei; Et cum spiritu tuo and Amen after the Post-communion; Et cum spiritu tuo and Deo gratias at the dismissal; and Amen at the blessing. Ibid, pp. 36-38.
Pius XII had already encouraged efforts in this direction in 1947:
“Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the
Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the
Mass, strive to make them familiar with the Roman Missal, so that the
faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words
and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive
to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all
who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when,
for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of
the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner,
or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass or do both or,
finally, in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of
Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant. (Mediator Dei § 105)

15. Bea made this “chauvinistic” judgement in the Introduction to the first edition of his New Psalter. See the Liber Psalmorum
published by the Pontifical Institute of Biblical Studies, Rome, 1945,
p. xxvi. But it was simply a common prejudice found among those who
confuse Vulgate Latin with Vulgar Latin (the language once used by Roman
soldiers, colonists and farmers). The classical scholar, Christine
Mohrmann, explained: “Liturgical Latin is not Classical Latin, but
neither is it, as is so often said, the Latin that was considered
decadent by educated people.” Liturgical Latin: Its Origin and Character, CUA Press, 1957, p. 60.
Even in Bea’s day, the prejudice against ecclesiastical Latin as infima latinitas
(the lowest form of Latinity) was already outdated, which shows that he
himself was behind the times and unwilling to acknowledge with pride
the unique contribution of the Vulgate in the transmission of the Faith
in the Church and in Western culture.

In the estimation of Church musicians, the new chants are
unmelodious. Even when recited, the words do not exactly roll off the
tongue, as with the traditional Psalter. That is because the authors of
the new Psalter tried to force the natural rhythm of the Vulgate version
to match the rhythm of Classical Latin poetry and its laws of
“quantitative” meter. Unsurprisingly, the Bea Psalter was not a success;
most of the religious communities refused to accept it. One of the few
who did accept it was the Benedictine monastery of En Calcat in France.
It was there, incidentally, that Dom Lambert Beauduin had spent some
years of his banishment by Pius XI for his “ecumenical” activities and
his opposition to any form of proselytism.

TRADCATKNIGHT VIDEOS!

TCK Youtube Channel

TRADCATKNIGHT- TOP 3 CATHOLIC YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."